Has anybody any opinions on using E5/E10 petrol in a TY125?

My son has been restoring one and is at the point of (fingers crossed) starting it up, but the question of running an old two stroke bike with E5 or E10  petrol has come up..

None of the companies websites are clear (e.g. Esso, Shell) whether any of their fuel is guaranteed ethanol free (e.g. Synergy Supreme+ 99 which in some areas has ethanol in, some not..), so I wondered what the general opinion is? In theory Oxfordshire (where he lives) should have ethanol free Synergy Supreme+ 99, but I'd rather he not be a guinea pig..

 

It should be fine, I run a couple old Yamaha snowmobiles on it (1981) just best to not let it sit too long. Seems some of the two stroke oils condition the fuel as well, however the snowmobiles are oil injected. Biggest problem I have heard is plastic tanks swelling, however I have not had this problem either. Non ethanol would be best.

Hi vfr man, I run a ty175 and as it has a fantic plastic tank I run it on esso supreme 99 as according to esso they don't put ethanol in it, also if you check the ty has a very low compression ratio so it would not cause any problems.I also run 2 of my specials on it as it seems to give cleaner pick-up and power. bike was run on 95 octane prior to fitting tank and ran fine. with the 125 I would think you'd be glad of any extra power you can get?? I've been a bike mechanic for over 40 years and now i'me retired I get to tinker in the garage all week.If you know any lads on plastic or f/glass tanks advise them to go for the esso unless you can get avgas from a local airfield!!

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply trialman - be aware that Esso says on their website:  (my emphasis)

Although our pumps have E5 labels on them, our Synergy Supreme⁺ 99 is actually ethanol free (except, due to technical supply reasons, in Devon, Cornwall, North Wales, North England and Scotland).

I think using petrol with ethanol in it is a bad idea.

Just remove the ethanol. QED.  Check it out on You Tube. 

On 1/4/2022 at 7:30 AM, trialman said:

Hi vfr man, I run a ty175 and as it has a fantic plastic tank I run it on esso supreme 99 as according to esso they don't put ethanol in it, also if you check the ty has a very low compression ratio so it would not cause any problems.I also run 2 of my specials on it as it seems to give cleaner pick-up and power. bike was run on 95 octane prior to fitting tank and ran fine. with the 125 I would think you'd be glad of any extra power you can get?? I've been a bike mechanic for over 40 years and now i'me retired I get to tinker in the garage all week.If you know any lads on plastic or f/glass tanks advise them to go for the esso unless you can get avgas from a local airfield!!

 

 

 

I was told that running a low compression bike on high octane was a waste of time, because the fuel would not ignite well, because of the low compression ?

Ignore the doom mongers - the problems with ethanol come from its ability to absorb water.  It has given some problems with fibreglass tanks but other than that it generally is OK.  Older bikes are 'problematical' only because they were built pre-ethanol and the manufacturers did not take the future in to account.  So "to be on the safe side" manufacturers tend to say "no" so as not to open themselves to any claims.  In theory the water absorbed could be an issue (especially if the bike is in a damp shed).  The water reduces the octane rating.

"Super" is only E5 if you are at all bothered.  My lawnmower stands all winter (in a damp shed) and still starts first pull in the spring.  I think this issue is rather exagerated a lot by the tin foil hat brigade.

Edited January 5, 20224 yr by ChrisCH
spell

8 hours ago, ChrisCH said:

Ignore the doom mongers - the problems with ethanol come from its ability to absorb water.  It has given some problems with fibreglass tanks but other than that it generally is OK.  Older bikes are 'problematical' only because they were built pre-ethanol and the manufacturers did not take the future in to account.  So "to be on the safe side" manufacturers tend to say "no" so as not to open themselves to any claims.  In theory the water absorbed could be an issue (especially if the bike is in a damp shed).  The water reduces the octane rating.

"Super" is only E5 if you are at all bothered.  My lawnmower stands all winter (in a damp shed) and still starts first pull in the spring.  I think this issue is rather exagerated a lot by the tin foil hat brigade.

Sorry, but you are wrong, the ethanol in the petrol is destroying fuel pipes, the worst case I have seen is 6 month old "Ethanol resistant" fuel hose that became porus and leaked like a sieve. Plenty of diaphram type carbs on strimmers and chainsaws etc, have been wrecked. It is a pain in the a***.

I have personal experience of even E5 making rubber parts brittle. I even had a fuel filter snap in my hand because the plastic went hard with the hose.

 

Fuel hose that is not E10 resistant will still degrade with E5, but slower. E10 will damage soft components. I would not touch E5, if there was a choice of ethanol-free. No pump that I know of is ethanol-free, it is E5 high octane, or E10 regular. 

Edited January 5, 20224 yr by Nishijin

You can find plenty of data if you look.  The chart here:  https://mykin.com/rubber-chemical-resistance-chart-3  shows different rubbers' suitability with many chemicals including ethanol.  The key ones are nitrile and butyl which are common rubber compounds for O rings.  Neither show satisfactory.  However there are plenty of others that score well.  I can only conclude that some things where people report issues (like garden equipment mentioned above) must have the cheaper compounds.  Millions of cars and motorcycles all round the world seem to be OK.

 

Edited January 6, 20224 yr by ChrisCH
spell

We go through this with every fuel grade change, all the same things were said when we went unleaded. Parts have always failed and that failure has always been attributed to the latest change. Rubber and plastic parts degrade, chemicals further degrade them, and if they aren't spec'd right the process can happen pretty quickly. If a part isn't suitable for use with ethanol then increasing the amount of ethanol should speed up the process, but many of us will also remember loads of hoses, seals, taps etc. failing on 4Star so failures are not new they've always been consumable parts.

The choices really are to use e10 or e5 with no knowledge of the odds of parts failing early as all we have is anecdotes, to remove the ethanol or buy Aspen, or to fit compatible parts. It's not a great choice, but it is what it is.

Also e5 and e10 is just the maximum allowed content it doesn't tell you exactly what you're getting, if you do the water based removal process accurately enough then you should be able to measure it.

51 minutes ago, totty79 said:

We go through this with every fuel grade change, all the same things were said when we went unleaded. ..

Very true.  Crazy that people wanted to pollute the air with lead just as an upper cylinder lubricant.

The one hard fact seems to be that ethanol absorbs water and this can cause some issues.  I think the OP was right to ask for more feedback as the Yam is an older bike and they seem to be the ones affected if one accepts the anecdotal evidence.  The problem with older equipment is that some of the fuel related parts will be after market and so people will have different experiences.  Replacement fuel lines for example or carb parts, inline filters etc.  Two people with "the same" bike will have different experiences.  It is essential that the actual material is known not just "rubber".

Needless to say the companies that make and sell additives and Aspen fuel will be keen to find fault to promote their products.  Needless to say some of the "ethanol safe" labels might not be 100% true either 😁

1 hour ago, ChrisCH said:

Very true.  Crazy that people wanted to pollute the air with lead just as an upper cylinder lubricant.

The one hard fact seems to be that ethanol absorbs water and this can cause some issues.  I think the OP was right to ask for more feedback as the Yam is an older bike and they seem to be the ones affected if one accepts the anecdotal evidence.  The problem with older equipment is that some of the fuel related parts will be after market and so people will have different experiences.  Replacement fuel lines for example or carb parts, inline filters etc.  Two people with "the same" bike will have different experiences.  It is essential that the actual material is known not just "rubber".

Needless to say the companies that make and sell additives and Aspen fuel will be keen to find fault to promote their products.  Needless to say some of the "ethanol safe" labels might not be 100% true either 😁

Yes lead in petrol was a crazy idea but it was introduced in the 1920s because it was a cheap way to improve the octane rating.

It was when leaded petrol was phased out in the 1970s and 80s that some engines developed premature valve seat recession and it was recognised that the lead had been a benefit to the valve seats.

The only thing I would add to this thread is about Aspen fuel, I use it in my chainsaws because it does not wreck my at least 30 year old kit. But mostly because the fumes from it are much less toxic than from ordinary pump  fuel. I used to get terrible headaches from chainsaw fumes after as little as 20 minutes sawing in still conditions. Since using Aspen I don't get them at all. I still have a couple of tree surgeon customers who use it because they have a duty of care to their employees. They are worried about asbestos type comebacks on their insurance, plus they don't want headaches either. I understand that the HSE have approved its use for petrol engined wacker plates in railway tunnels. Which helped Network rail and their contractors no end because previously they had banned them.